Originally posted by: Tiptup
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I'm not saying this bonus would be huge, but it would still be something. Things like PC games would have a sizable difference on a Blu-ray: faster installs, faster load times, more graphics, more cut scenes . . . I dunno, I don't really care that much. If Blu-ray can't be the dominant format, then I'd hope something even better comes along pretty soon.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
Since the studios seem to be content with just giving us higher bit rate mpeg2 video, as seen here http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php, I'd say it is pretty meaningless. They have so much more space to work with, yet instead of getting movies in the superior VC-1 or AVC codec, we're getting the same old mpeg2. They only seem to use AVC or VC-1 when they're space constrained, like with HD-DVD.
Mpeg2 can look great if the movie isn't too long and/or you have a double-layered Blu-ray.
But why even bother when VC-1 and AVC are superior? They could save space and make the extras in HD as well. Right now, on most releases, the movie is in hi-def while the extras are all in SD (generally 480p I believe).
Originally posted by: lordjedi
As for data management, I don't know anyone that's even using regular DVDs for anything more than offsite archival purposes. They certainly aren't using it for regular backups and they most certainly wouldn't be using Blu-Ray for regular backups either. 50 GB still isn't enough for anything other than moving a large database across sites that aren't linked by a network. But since USB hard drives are much cheaper than BD burners and media, that's used instead. For general backups, we're sticking with tapes. For "live" backups, we're mirroring onto external hard drives. Blu-Ray wouldn't even come into the equation, much like DVDs don't either.
I dread the day when software comes on a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD disc. I can't imagine how long that software will take to install (Adobe Dreamweaver and Illustrator CS3 already take 30 mins each, and they're on DVD).
Originally posted by: Tiptup
I'm not saying this bonus would be huge, but it would still be something. Things like PC games would have a sizable difference on a Blu-ray: faster installs, faster load times, more graphics, more cut scenes . . . I dunno, I don't really care that much. If Blu-ray can't be the dominant format, then I'd hope something even better comes along pretty soon.
Why would having a bigger disk give you a faster install or faster load times? Every PC game I've ever played install itself onto the hard drive and only uses the disc to make sure you have the game (which is pretty easily cracked). You'd get more graphics and more cut scenes, but a lot of those things are starting to become available through digital distribution. Take a look at Steam. You don't even have to leave your house to buy the game. You but the game in advance, they start preloading content onto your computer. When the game is released, it gets unlocked and you start playing. If you ever need to reinstall your system, you can back the game up or just redownload it. A lot of gamers would love more graphics, but I think you'd find that fewer want more cut scenes (unless it's a Final Fantasy game). The more you're taken out of the game and just watching cut scenes, the more it's like watching a movie and not playing a game.